Page 1 of 2
#1
If phrygian Dominant mode is simply the 5th mode of the Harmonic Minor modes, then aren't they the same thing? E Phrygian Dominant is exactly the same as A Harmonic Minor, so why not just call everything Harmonic minor to keep things simple? This is really bothering me....
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Put him in your signature and help
(")_(") him on his way to world domination.

"Arguing online is like racing in the Special Olympics- Even if
you win you're still retarded."

"You cant spell crap without rap"
#2
They are not the same, and you lack the kno9wledge required to be worrying about things like modes of the harmonic minor scale. Read the Crusades articles and learn the basics.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#3
Ugh...

They have the same notes, but that's NOT why they're the same. It depends on what the tonal center is.

For example, if I was using A Harmonic minor, the tonal center is Am, but in E Phrygian Dominant, the tonal center is E Major.

If you don't understand that, then you're not ready for modes.
If you play guitar, please don't waste your time in The Pit, and please instead educate yourself in the Musician Talk forum, where you can be missing out on valuable info.
Quote by DiminishedFifth
It's like you read my mind!

I got meself a self-approving sig. Kick. Ass.
#4
If you know so much more than I do, then can you explain to me why they are different?
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Put him in your signature and help
(")_(") him on his way to world domination.

"Arguing online is like racing in the Special Olympics- Even if
you win you're still retarded."

"You cant spell crap without rap"
#5
The phrygian dominant has a more egyptian/middle-eastern sound, while the harmonic minor has a more "classical" sound. Its is because of the root note and the tonal centers, as stated above.
#6
Quote by Metal_Militia2
If you know so much more than I do, then can you explain to me why they are different?


You simply aren't ready to be worrying about modes. The two aren't even remotely similar, and if you can't see why, you need to go back and start with the basics. I'm going to report this thread because the question is answered in the mode sticky anyway (the one you should have read before posting) and we have millions of threads about modes already.

*reported*
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Jan 25, 2009,
#7
Quote by Metal_Militia2
If you know so much more than I do, then can you explain to me why they are different?


modes and scales are named according to what note is played first / considered the root note. if the band is playing E minor, any mode of E minor played over it will still be E minor, or will be wrong. re-ordering notes doesn't change how they relate to what the rest of the music is doing.

if you wanna read a big long, detailed, accurate explanation of how modes work, please click this link: https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?p=18280017#post18280017

otherwise, there's already a modes thread in this forum, and it's only a matter of time before someone calls you on that.
Last edited by frigginjerk at Jan 25, 2009,
#8
Harmonic minor is the natural minor with a sharpened 7th. Phrygian dominant is the natural minor with a flattened 2nd and a sharpened 3rd. Always think of a scale in terms of its root note. Where you start from is of little importance, as the impression of the scale will be given by what the listener perceives as the root; in the context of soloing over a progression, the backing will determine what that root is.
#9
As already mentioned in different ways - it has to do with the interval structure in relation to the root note.

Harmonic Minor is 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 7
Phrygian Dominant is 1 b2 3 4 5 b6 b7

Harmonic Minor contains a minor third and the leading tone (maj 7). These are pretty important intervals for defining the overall feel and sound quality of a scale.
The 7th chord off the tonic is min/Maj7. (1 b3 5 7)
A Harmonic Minor = A B C D E F G#

Phrygian Dominant contains a Major 3rd and Min 7th. Again if you think of the 3rd and 7th as two of the most important notes in defining the tonal quality of a chord or scale then these two modes/scales couldn't be more different. Add to that the flavoursome b2 and you've got a very distinct sounding mode indeed.
The 7th chord off the tonic is a dominant 7. (1 3 5 b7)
A Phrygian Dominant = A Bb C# D E F G.

If you ever want to compare modes then compare the PARALLEL modes using the same tonic/final. It's not just about what notes they use, but which of those notes are the tonic that all the other notes are heard in relation to.

When comparing RELATIVE modes (modes that use the same notes) heres the simplest way to conceptualize the difference...In A harmonic minor E sounds like the dominant (fifth). In E Phrygian Dominant E sounds like the tonic.

Hope this clears it up for you.

Best of Luck
Si
#10
I know Archeo can be offensive sometimes, but he's right. We answer questions like this (not sure if I count as a regular yet but I'm gonna get vain here) all the time, and ninty nine percent of the people that ask them aren't going to understand what we're saying anyways. Just trust us when we say you should be focusing on other things, becasue we've all been where you are, so we know the best way to get beyond it.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#11
It's not useful though, some teachers might argue it is best to strike while the iron is hot. If someone shows an interest in something - you teach them that in a way they can understand. A good teacher will take a complex idea and simplify it to suit a students level of understanding if the student is asking and showing interest in an area.

The student never lacks enough knowledge to understand something. The teacher lacks the knowledge to put it in a way the student will understand.

Can you imagine if you had a teacher and you said hey here's something I don't quite understand and have been wondering about for a while then the teacher said nothing more than "you lack the knowledge required to be worrying about things like that".

If I ever saw a teacher say this I would lose respect for the teacher and walk away thinking that the teacher was a complete dickhead.

The student is exactly at the place to learn the concept. He's thinking about it regularly and eager to know. This is when it will make the most sense to him and when his questions should be answered directly. He couldn't be more "ready" to learn.

It's counterproductive and condescending to essentially tell him he doesn't know enough to understand. It belittles the student while reinforcing the teacher's own self appreciation but wins no respect from others.

If a student show's an interest in something a teacher's job is to nurture and grow that interest not cut it off at the bud.

This is an example of a very clear cut question from a student of music asking other students of music a simple question. If you truly think the student lacks the required information to understand the only level of answer you can give him - why not just leave the forum and find someone that you can help? If you understand the principle enough to believe that you can tailor an answer to the level of the student then go for it.

Simply making blanket assumptions about his level of knowledge and relegating him into the box of "not ready yet" is insulting. He has every right to challenge "If you know so much more than I do, then can you explain to me why they are different?"

And he's right, if you know the material well enough to think you are in a position to judge others you should be able to explain it to a six year old. If you can't then you yourself aren't ready to offer advice and teach on the material. So simply don't respond to the thread and leave it to people who generally want to help and don't have an insatiable need to make themselves feel smarter than everyone else.

If ninety nine percent of people that ask a question don't understand your answer- surely that says something about the way you're saying it than it does about 99% of the people's intelligence and ability to grasp a relatively simple concept.
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Jan 25, 2009,
#12
Can you imagine if you had a teacher and you said hey here's something I don't quite understand and have been wondering about for a while then the teacher said nothing more than "you lack the knowledge required to be worrying about things like that".


It happens all the time. Try asking a chemistry professor to teach you quantum chemistry when you don't even know what electron orbitals are.

And he's right, if you know the material well enough to think you are in a position to judge others you should be able to explain it to a six year old.


Let's take that to its logical extreme. I should then expect a neuroscientist to be able to explain neuropsychopharmacology to a six year old. Screw the fact that said six year old doesn't even know what a neuron is, the professor should be able to make him appreciate the importance of the SNARE complex in synaptic transmission.

The only way to educate someone about these concepts is to make them aware, if they aren't already, about the concepts that underlie them. In this case, those concepts include basic tonal harmony, which is explained in the Crusades articles and the mode sticky.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Jan 25, 2009,
#13
A six year old wouldn't ask questions about neurons unless they had some prior knowledge. It is up to the teacher to figure out how to answer the question in terms of what the student knows. Given that a student knows enough to ask a specific question, it is entirely possible to answer it in their own terms.

The guy asking about the difference between Phrygian dominant and harmonic minor is not somebody who doesn't know anything about scales, he's somebody who knows that the E Phrygian Dominant shares the same notes as the A harmonic minor. You have to work with what he knows, and what he doesn't.

Mainly though, I have to ask: if you are sick of answering the same questions over again, can't you just not respond to people asking? There are plenty of posters willing to answer his question.
#14
Apples and oranges man.

This guy isn't asking about quantum chemistry. He's asking a simple question about why different modes sound different.

Your standard position in this forum seems to be - if you're asking a question about modes then you aren't ready for them. It's almost as if to be ready for modes you have to have a complete understanding of them.

My position is if you're asking about modes, especially a specific question that shows a basic understanding such as "I know that E Phrygian Dominant and A Harmonic Minor use the same notes - but I don't understand how they can sound different when they use the same notes - it's really bugging me. Please help." Then they are definitely "ready" for modes.

If I had a genuine interest in chemistry and asked a chemistry professor a specific question that had been bothering me for sometime and he said "oh you lack the knowledge to be worrying about things like that." I would say "Obviously I don't since I am in fact worrying about it. Do you lack the knowledge to explain it?"

If he says no I would ask him to please explain. Of course he could then go into a huge explanation that was over my head or he could do his best to explain the concept in a way I can understand.

Also I didn't say it doesn't happen. The point I was trying to make is that the sign of a good teacher is the ability to explain a complex concept in a way the student can understand whatever level they are at.

If I were a commerce student and popped into the chemistry professor's office and said hey I need a quick rundown of quantum chemistry. He could tell me that in order to understand quantum chemistry I need a solid grounding in chemistry and I should take some papers in that area. But that's not really a specific question from a student that is serious and interested now is it? Even then though he might give me a simple explanation that gives me a basic understanding of what the main principles are all about to pique my interest and then help me devise a study programme so that I could in fact learn what I want to know.
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Jan 25, 2009,
#15
Well, I guess Archeo Avis never had to start somewhere and was bestowed with his godly understanding of modes straight out of the womb.
We should all bow down, because he's obviously the messiah.

/scarcasm
Quote by SteveHouse
This thread is officially about sucking Sleaze off for a sig.


Quote by tayroar
Hey Sleaze I'll give you a blowjob if you sig me. Maybe even some nudey photos?


Quote by crazy8rgood


Sleaze, that made me lulz in my pants.


Quote by 36mikeyb36
hahaha Sleaze i'd give you my mom for that one.
#16
Quote by Archeo Avis
Let's take that to its logical extreme. I should then expect a neuroscientist to be able to explain neuropsychopharmacology to a six year old. Screw the fact that said six year old doesn't even know what a neuron is, the professor should be able to make him appreciate the importance of the SNARE complex in synaptic transmission.
Yeah I bet you a neuroscientist could explain the basic principles of neuropsychopharmacology to a six year old. They would of course not expect the six year old to be able to pronounce the word and their teaching would be aimed at a six year old level.

I have been to schools and explained genetic/neurological disorders to six year olds. I can explain the same concept to adults who don't know anything about genes or proteins. My understanding of the material is limited and not at the level of the scientists that research these fields. But the thing is I can tailor an idea to suit my audience. I don't tell the six year olds they aren't smart enough to understand - I put it in a way that THEY can understand rather than expecting them to instantly get to my level of understanding.
Si
#17
There's a point where the subject would be so diluted that it wouldn't be relevant anymore. I could tell TS that the notes in the scale don't matter, the intervals do, but if they can't get this answer by themselves then thier is some part missing in thier knowledge of the basics, which I can't fill in until I know what it is.
Quote by Zaphod_Beeblebr
Theory is descriptive, not prescriptive.


Quote by MiKe Hendryckz
theory states 1+1=2 sometimes in music 1+1=3.
#18
I'd love to see someone type up a few paragraphs explaining what a ring is in a way a six-year-old can understand. The way the kid hears about rings in mathematics is because his mom is a math professor at Vanderbilt and is up late working on a proof centered around basic ring theory. The kid wakes up to go to the bathroom, sees his mom working on the proof, and asks what she is doing. At that moment, the professor is reading and relearning basic concepts of abstract algebra and now has to explain it to the child. You be the professor and explain rings to the kid.

Guys, don't be silly. You need a solid foundation of certain knowledge before you can progress. There are sources on this website (my sig) that start at the very beginning and go all the way through modes of the major, harmonic minor, and melodic minor scales. I've been teaching people about modes on here for a few years with what appears to be decent success.
#19
Quote by Sleaze Disease
Well, I guess Archeo Avis never had to start somewhere and was bestowed with his godly understanding of modes straight out of the womb.
We should all bow down, because he's obviously the messiah.

/scarcasm

That statement is wrong. Zeus created Archeo Avis from a thought in his head, and Archeo then created the universe. Big bang was when Archeo lost his virginity (sorry about the lewdness but it's a known fact).
#20
How can you tell what degree of success you're 'teaching' people at? Most of the short responses I've seen here regarding the admittedly large amount of mode threads are basically 'shutup, RTFS, and come back when you're "ready" '.

What the hell is 'ready' supposed to mean to people who are simply curious about theory? They ask a question, and it seems to me that if it implies that they don't understand modes yet, they aren't ready. How do you know they haven't yet reached the requirements that the 'short posters' deem as an absolute requirement to understand the concept of modes? What if they already understand intervals, major scale theory, and anything else that is a 'requirement' to learn modes.

What I'm saying is if someone posts a mode question here, seems to me it's automatically assumed that they aren't ready for modes and are referred back to the absolute basics of theory without regard for whatever possible level of knowledge they may be at. Could be just me, but I think that's implying that the people who post those kind of responses are of the opinion that modes are a ridiculously advanced topic, comparably to that of $%&*in neurochemistry, and anyone who hasn't studied an extensive amount isn't even able to remotely grasp the concept. Completely forget the possibility that a brief explanation may be helpful to the individual. Isn't that what this forum is about? Being helpful?

Yea, directing people to lessons already available on the site that are informative will probably eventually lead them to understand the concept, but recycling the same response over and over probably doesn't seem too helpful to the people who are actually looking for help.
#21
We need to establish a base. The person may know the material or he might not, but in order to explain a more advanced topic, I need the person to be familiar with musical nomenclature and ideas.

Edit: For a less complex example than rings and neuropsychopharmacology, how could I teach someone how to determine if an integral is convergent or divergent if he does not yet know limits? How could I teach lHopital's rule (to hell with the fancy letters!) if my student does not understand limits (and therefore derivatives, too)?

Remember, I'm earning a degree in math.
Last edited by bangoodcharlote at Jan 25, 2009,
#22
That's a completely reasonable request. Where in this thread has the TS been asked to establish that base before being referred to the basics? So waste time while making an assumption that the TS doesn't know the basics and then argue that in order to spend 5 minutes typing an explanation you need like half an hour to establish that he knows the basics before any kind of explanation is provided.

edit: really I'm not trying to start an argument or anything, I'm just pretty much a lurker here, but I find the amount of 'short responses' kind of silly. I learned a lot of my theory here on UG, but I think if there was more willingness to provide explanations to an honest question I think this forum would be a lot more active and encouraging to participate in. I could happily spend 15 minutes explaining modes to a TS and try and make sure I make it as easy to understand as possible regarding the context the question was asked in. But when the usual response is RTFS it's kind of discouraging for helpers and inquisitors IMHO.
Last edited by Ead at Jan 25, 2009,
#25
How about, instead of telling the lady who has about 7,000 posts on the topic (which equates to about 600 threads and 500 people helped) how to teach, you just explain modes and the prerequisite knowledge to the TS?
#26
Quote by 20Tigers

When comparing RELATIVE modes (modes that use the same notes) heres the simplest way to conceptualize the difference...In A harmonic minor E sounds like the dominant (fifth). In E Phrygian Dominant E sounds like the tonic.



Well put. I think that this sums up the answer to his question.
#27
Haha... whatever. 20tigers has already tried to help and that attempt seems to have been disregarded by the obviously more knowledgeable and experienced posters. You've posted 7000 posts on modes? How many of those can be summed up in RTFS? That's teaching? You haven't even responded to my statement: Where has the TS been asked to provide the base that you require to help him out? You want a TS to establish a base before you help. All you've done is reinforce the suggestion of going back to the basics. No inquisition of the TS's knowledge.

Like I said, I don't want to argue, but really I don't see how a person asking about how one mode differs from another is comparable to neurochemistry or whatever degree you're earning.
#28
Quote by bangoodcharlote
I'd love to see someone type up a few paragraphs explaining what a ring is in a way a six-year-old can understand. The way the kid hears about rings in mathematics is because his mom is a math professor at Vanderbilt and is up late working on a proof centered around basic ring theory. The kid wakes up to go to the bathroom, sees his mom working on the proof, and asks what she is doing. At that moment, the professor is reading and relearning basic concepts of abstract algebra and now has to explain it to the child. You be the professor and explain rings to the kid.

Guys, don't be silly. You need a solid foundation of certain knowledge before you can progress. There are sources on this website (my sig) that start at the very beginning and go all the way through modes of the major, harmonic minor, and melodic minor scales. I've been teaching people about modes on here for a few years with what appears to be decent success.

The problem with your example is that the kid isn't really interested in rings. The kid is interested in her mother and "what she's doing". She's not really asking about ring theory she's asking about her mother and wanting some of her time.

If the kid was some kind of prodigy and had enough of a grasp of algebra to lay awake at night wondering on some finer point of ring theory and then got up and went to her mother the maths professor while her mother was watching Desperate Housewives and asked her to explain - that would be an entirely different story wouldn't it. And the mother would do her best to make sure she set her right.

Even so the mother can explain algebra and what she does for a job to her six year old in a way that the child would understand. She wouldn't even need to mention rings.

Yeah there are things that require a prerequisite understanding before you can grasp them. But you're missing my point. If someone demonstrates a genuine interest in a topic and has a specific question that they have been wondering about then they are ready to learn. Fobbing them off with a "you're not ready, here's a beginners guide now stop wasting my time" attitude is pointless - other than to boost an undeserved feeling of superiority.
Si
#29
Like a lot of people, I've always struggled a bit with calculus, and thought it was "hard". A couple of years ago, I bought "The idiots guide to calculus" to try to fix this. Anyway, I wasn't even a couple of pages in and there are these two little pictures. In the first one it has this little stick man pushing a block up an incline that doesn't vary, and below it says "Normal math problem". In the second picture, he is pushing the block up a curvy hill, and below it says "Calculus problem". It then went on to explain the "zooming in" idea and using regular math to solve the zoomed in bit, then adding up all the zoomed in bits to get an answer that's pretty close - then said "now imagine you could zoom in infinitely close".

That was the basic gist of it, but when I saw that a light-bulb totally went off in my head, and I said "that doesn't sound that hard after all". The thing is that every thing else I'd read on the subject had always basically said "this is really hard, and you probably won't understand it".

My point is that I agree with 20tigers that a good teacher can explain the basic gist of the subject in a way that anyone can understand with only a small amount of background knowledge. To start digging further into calculus, yes, a knowledge of algebra is needed, but that didn't stop the author from getting the basic idea across first.

It seems the same idea could be applied to explaining modes.
#30
I've never had a six year old ask me about rings. I've had a child (older than six granted) remark that composition of functions is a bit like multiplying numbers, and I was able to explain this. Back at university, when we learnt Lagrange's Theorem and somebody asked "is that true in reverse?" the lecturer was able to explain. Had a student asked about Sylow's Theorems before knowing the basics, I'm sure the lecturer would not have been able to explain, but funnily enough, nobody did.
#31
I basically agree with everyone.

However, the problem with the internet is that it's very difficult to establish what the student knows, and to question them or for them to ask for clarification. Teaching someone "modes" on a forum is an extremely tedious affair, and generally comes down to the concept of a tonic, as well as harmonic and melodic resolution. In my experience, those three things take a few weeks to get comfy with if you have a teacher in real life once a week, and play a lot at home. Basically, the reason you hear RTFS so much is because it's so incredibly tedious to teach modes across the net at all, let alone be sure if the pupil truly understands or has learnt to parrot derivations - you'd have to exchange mp3s of playing, endless bloody examples and corrections, blah blah blah.

I personally would like to see what the TS thinks of 20T's replies.
#32
Quote by Freepower
I basically agree with everyone.

However, the problem with the internet is that it's very difficult to establish what the student knows, and to question them or for them to ask for clarification. Teaching someone "modes" on a forum is an extremely tedious affair, and generally comes down to the concept of a tonic, as well as harmonic and melodic resolution. In my experience, those three things take a few weeks to get comfy with if you have a teacher in real life once a week, and play a lot at home. Basically, the reason you hear RTFS so much is because it's so incredibly tedious to teach modes across the net at all, let alone be sure if the pupil truly understands or has learnt to parrot derivations - you'd have to exchange mp3s of playing, endless bloody examples and corrections, blah blah blah.

I personally would like to see what the TS thinks of 20T's replies.



exactly, which is why I made a video with approaches to it, but even that is not a perfect replacement for reallife.

Some stuff on that subject I can explain in 5 minutes with a guitar in my hand and a "Real time" exchange with my student.


There's so much to modes. The ultimate problem is, is that the most popular guitar virtuoso's (Gilbert, Vai, Satch etc.)used the word mode as linguistic device and not as theoretical device, but they explain it as if it's theoretically modal.

But since they also make awesome music it's very misleading, and everyone assumes they are always correct on everything, because people think popular means good.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Jan 28, 2009,
#34
modes are just major scales with different rootnotes... therefore changing the entire scale entirely though using the same notes, so i guess that some modes would have same notes as other scales...
#35
Quote by Freepower
Well, Vai and Satch have composed truly modal pieces, to be fair - although they are as Archeo puts it, crammed in to a modern context.


Which tunes?

I don't think they have true modal pieces.

IF they now suddenly have true modal pieces then why do I get hypocritically bitched here when I start about modes?

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Jan 28, 2009,
#36
i think if someone asks about modes, they should wikipedia it, and click on everyword that doesnt make sense to them, to make it make sense, thats partly how i did it

WIKIPEDIA 4 LIEF
#37
why isit very important to consider a piece truly modal? isnt playing a piece with a major scale (which some faygorts may argue is not a mode) can be considered modal? or do i have so say "NO STUPID! ITS BEING PLAYEd IN IONIAN RETRD!" for it to be modal?
#38
Quote by dmirtygorachyov
why isit very important to consider a piece truly modal? isnt playing a piece with a major scale (which some faygorts may argue is not a mode) can be considered modal? or do i have so say "NO STUPID! ITS BEING PLAYEd IN IONIAN RETRD!" for it to be modal?


To me it isn't, but I get bitched on that stuff, so I asked for clarification.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#39
Quote by xxdarrenxx
To me it isn't, but I get bitched on that stuff, so I asked for clarification.


Im wondering aswell, waht makes a piece modal and not modal, when technically every piece uses a mode? unless its a hardcore chromatic bastard?
#40
A modal song would have a progression that just loops Bm and E7 (for B Dorian) or just two or maybe three chords. A non-modal piece in Bm would be something like Bm F#7 A E G D E F#7, for example (that's Hotel California). The reason you're so restricted in modal music is that modes want to resolve to their relative Ionian modes. That B Dorian lick will want to go to A major if you make the progression too complex. Modal progressions don't really allow chromaticism as, again, thet will send them back to their relative Ionian modes, "destroying the delicate modal harmony," as I like to say. That Hotel California progression uses several chromatic tones..
Page 1 of 2